Again, there are some things that the committee may want to consider as it examines that particular recommendation. The way the administrative monetary penalty regime is set up now, it's there to ensure that public office holders disclose and file their public declarations on time. It's not there for the actual substantive breaches of the act. And again, there were reasons why that line was drawn at the time when the government first introduced the legislation.
There are a couple of issues that the committee may want to think about, and I think some of these have been raised by other witnesses. One is whether or not a nominal monetary penalty is an appropriate response to a substantive breach of the act, particularly if that substantive breach is of a serious nature.
The way the act is intended to work is that you can call it a name-and-shame kind of regime. If there is a serious breach, the idea is that the commissioner reports that publicly. That results in reputational damage, and ultimately I think the main consideration for the government around this has to do with the role of the Prime Minister and his political accountability for the conduct of the ministry as well as those appointees for whom he is responsible.
I think it's important to bear in mind that under the Westminster system of government, when you look back at the trigger for the emergence of a role of a Prime Minister, it was very much wresting from the king the actual appointment of the ministry. This is at the heart of the role of a Prime Minister: to be the one who determines the makeup of a cabinet and basically to hire and fire ministers. And the act is trying to draw a line to ensure that it respects that Westminster feature, that it is ultimately up to the Prime Minister to determine whether or not a breach of the act is sufficient to warrant removal of an individual from office or some other form of remedial action such as a public apology or whatever it might be.